d) Mecca or Abyssinia
It is perplexing why HT mentions Mecca when they are at odds with the evidence. The Prophet (saw) was not living as a tax paying and law-abiding citizen in Mecca like the typical HT member, he was on a mission to establish a new order. This is in complete contrast to HT position in the UK who has gone to lengths to show how they are not a threat to the UK system, as their mission is only for the distant Muslims countries.
So, how is Mecca relevant to the issue of election or participation? They cite the example of the Prophet refusing the offer of power made by the Pagan Arabs as evidence of non-participation. However, they conveniently leave out the fact that there was a condition attached to the offer made to the Prophet. In contrast, there is no condition attached to voting or participating in the political process here.
(Yusuf) The condition is the acceptance of giving agency to someone who will rule by other than what Allah revealed. Back to the hukm Shar’I.
(Yamin) The above has no relevance to my point. Moreover you evade the point why your members are going around misquoting the incident of when the power was offer to the Prophet in Makkah.
Makkah is an example of the compromise we are being offered. I have not used that example in any of my arguments, so wouldn’t it be sensible to address just one of my points rather than obfuscating. If you have a problem with any other members, take it up with them, as I have said to you before, we are each accountable for own deeds.
———————————————————————————–
As for Abyssinia, the Muslims were there only as temporary refugee and there is no evidence that shows they were given specific instructions about how they should conduct themselves. One has to prove such instructions were divine commandments.
There is no clear evidence, which shows how Muslims should engage with non-Muslims living under their authority. This is the reason why there is difference of opinion on this subject.
(Yusuf) Are you arguing that the texts are silent about this? What about the texts related to da’wah, treatment of neighbours, speaking the truth, treatment with kindness, fulfilling ones oaths, sticking to the hukm shar’I etc. The point is all of these texts are universal and demand application as individuals, with or without the khilafah.
(Yamin) I am not talking about engaging your neighbors as individuals; I mean how collectively we should deal with the non-Muslim authority.
(Yusuf) Again, I have not advanced that claim, so why are you insisting I respond to discussions I have not been a involved in?
(Yamin) That’s fine, this no longer needs to be discussed.